The Logical Atheist

What if Darwin was wrong? Would it matter for the God argument? No, it would not matter one whit. In the latest latest installment of The Atheist Experience (24.20, May 17, 2020), Jenna Belk and Anthony Magnabosco (the "street epistemologist") argued with a theist who claimed to be an expert in -- and a debunker of -- the theory of evolution. The three of them wasted precious time arguing over how one qualifies as such an expert. *Big Yawn* Who cares? The reason it doesn't matter is that evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the God question. If Darwinist theory were to fail tomorrow because of palpably conflicting fossil evidence, that could not resurrect God as an explanation of the origin of species (or of life). It would simply mean that the naturalists would have to look for a new theory. This sort of thing has happened throughout the history of science. It would indeed be a big setback for biologists and related scientists -- given that evolutionary theory has b...

As a general matter, I accept the idea that he who proposes -- X is true (and thus ought to believed) -- has the burden of proof. But I am not troubled by the idea that propositions of the form X is not true (and ought not to be believed )   -- also require support. Drawing a hard line against this is a mistake. You may not be able to demonstrate a negative proposition  directly --  say, I did not commit a particular murder -- but you can demonstrate it indirectly by showing that a contradictory positive proposition is true -- I was somewhere else at the time . Proof that the earth is round is proof that the earth is not flat. Why can't I demonstrate that the supernatural God does not exist by showing that it is impossible? It seems to me that any negative proposition can be restated in a positive way. The negative claim God does not exist  corresponds to the positive Spinoza-ish claim that the natural world is eternal, self-sufficient, the source of all ex...

I just have one problem with God talk. It doesn't say anything. A sentence can be grammatical without being meaningful. I don't mean merely that it can be grammatical and wrong. I mean it can be grammatical and empty -- literally. It may seem otherwise, but examination will show that not to be the case. Take the sentence God exists . It appears meaningful. But is it? No, it is not. God here stands for a supernatural nonmaterial thing that has, sort of like us only better, a consciousness, a will, and a capacity to act, that is, to make things happen. And this entity is said to exist -- to be real -- again, sort of like us only better. The problem is that the concept  exist  here, while it may look like the concept you and I have used all our lives about things in the natural world, is actually nothing like it. God's supernatural "existence" is necessarily unlike anything we know or can know. The theist cashes in on familiar a word but admits he does not use ...

Let's face it: for many people the word  atheism and related terms are off-putting. It's been freighted with so much baggage over the centuries that for a long time people were reluctant to claim the label. It's understandable, and I'm happy that has changed. It's been a favorite insult even when it was incorrect. Theodore Roosevelt called Thomas Paine, author of The Age of Reason , a "filthy little atheist." There was just one three problems: Paine was immaculately clean; he was tall; and he (like many of the founders) was a deist. TR wasn't a stickler for facts apparently. Since believers from time immemorial have thought that without God morality is impossible, the conclusion followed that atheists were amoralists -- good and bad were not among their concerns. (Of course the error is in thinking that God is or could be the source of objective ethics .) Let's recall the time when atheists couldn't testify in court because no greater powe...

It's a mainstay of the New Atheists to pose as open-minded scientists simply awaiting evidence for a theist hypothesis that in principle could be proved. Ron Reagan speaks for the lot when he says, “You show me evidence, I’ll reconsider, but in the absence of evidence I do not believe.” But is that what's really going on behind the scenes? I don't think so. It's hard to believe that any of those atheist talk-show hosts actually expect someone to phone up with a never-before-heard proof of the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad. I know I don't expect it -- but then I'm a logical, not an evidentialist or skeptical, atheist. That means I know no evidence is forthcoming -- ever -- for the existence of a logically impossible "being." So I'm not waiting for it. (I just learned that the late  Sherwin Wine , a key figure in secular humanistic Judaism,  called this position ignosticism . Who knew?) By the same token, the New Atheists aren't expe...

"We cannot think [therefore, or say] anything unlogical...." --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Prolific atheist celebrity Matt Dillahunty -- who has done many videos on logic, reason, and certainty -- thinks the problem with the laws of logic is that it they not axiomatic -- self-evidently true -- and cannot be validated because you have to use them in the very attempt to refute them. I guess he thinks that involves circular reasoning or question-begging. Most generally, he thinks logic (along with reason) is no demonstrable. Here's how he puts it in a YouTube video : There are people who believe that reason is in fact absolute. I used to be one of them. Even as an atheist I would argue that the only absolutes are identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. And now I recognize that while this is a reasonable position to hold, that all of the evidence shows that these things are inviolate and absolute, we have no way of demonstrating that be...

When I say I know X, I mean -- and I think most people would agree -- that I have a fair degree of confidence that X is the case and that this conviction is justified.* (It's always fair to ask why someone is confident.) But what does it mean to say, "I believe (in) X"? That seems to be a mushier claim. I'd like to try to sort this out. Let's start by acknowledging that many words have multiple senses. There is no platonic realm where we can look for the true  definition of words. Language is a living social institution, and words "move" over time. (I recommend linguist John McWhorter's enjoyable book Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still [Like, Literally] .) From the time of Samuel Johnson, dictionaries were descriptive, not prescriptive. They showed how words were commonly used, but not how they ought to be used. (Of course, if you want to communicate with other people, you'll want to infer prescription fr...